Mark Sapiro writes: > I'm not sure what to change at this point. I really don't want another > change in the attribute name, but maybe.
Yeah, I know. On the other hand, now that it really matters, this is probably the last chance to make such a change. > I'm also not sure about alignment as that is a technical term in the > DMARC spec and may be more technical than we want here. Sure. But "from rewriting" is something we do for other reasons (anonymous lists), and saying that message/rfc822 encapsulation is "from rewriting" seems way too inaccurate to me. > > [FIXME: Should this respect the MIME vs. legacy encapsulation > > ('digest') setting? If 'yes', that setting should move to General > > or so?] > > I don't want to go the FIXME route. It's too hard for this release. OK. > Also, are you suggesting doing this for all messages based on what is > now Digest options-> mime_is_default_digest or doing it per user based > on the user's "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" Per user, because of the issues we've heard about specific MUAs having trouble with MIME encapsulation. > Also, this (legacy encapsulation) really only differs from the Munge > >From option in that a few headers are copied to the body of the message > and non-text/plain part are scrubbed, and I don't know how valuable it > would be. True. I mention it because we've had PRs about MIME encapsulation already. > > > header munging settings below with the exception of adding "via > > > real_name" to the display name in the From: for an anonymous list and > > > > ?? Adding real name to From in an *anonymous* list? > > real_name refers the the list attribute which is the list name with > possibly different capitalization, but I see it should be changed. OIC. I don't think you need to mention it here; Mailman should just DTRT. If it's an anonymous list, the list owner should configure 'From' correctly, that's all. > Hold is not an option for dmarc_moderation_action. it is the action > which applies to messages From: a domain with DMARC policy p=reject an > optionally p=quarantine. The possible actions are Accept, Munge From, > Wrap Message, Reject or Discard I don't understand why we need both this and list_is_from? The latter is a clear violation of RFC 5322, acceptable only because it's one of the approaches the DMARC proponents (and Yahoo!) suggest for mailing lists faced with a DMARC DoS attack. Why not just deprecate list_is_from in favor of dmarc_moderation_action? ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org